DETAILED ACTION
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-20 of this application are subject to examination.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The current claim limitations are construed under the BRI standard. No explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 1: Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for the entire scope of the claimed invention. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” Nevertheless, not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed; all that is necessary is that one skilled in the art be able to practice the claimed invention, given the level of knowledge and skill in the art. With respect to the breadth of a claim, the relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. See MPEP 2164.08.
Claims 16-20 recite a generic “method of manufacturing”, but no specific and clear steps of manufacturing an article are claimed. Rather, the bodies of claims 16-19 only recite steps of “structuring”. The recited “structuring” steps are so broad as to encompass any and all possible manners of constructing the claimed article. In contrast, the specification is not enabling for any specific method of manufacturing because, like claims 16-20, the specification fails to set forth any specific and clear steps of manufacturing an article. For these reasons, the specification is not enabling for the generic “method of manufacturing” claimed in claims 16-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is directed to an “archery limb holder” (l. 1), but the body of claim 1 recites limitations of additional subject matter that does not constitute part of the claimed “archery limb holder”. Such limitations include “wherein the limb is configured to at least partially support a draw cord that is moveable along a shooting plane to launch a projectile toward a target plane” (ll. 6-8), “wherein the target plane is extendable through a target” (l. 8), “wherein, when the archery bow is vertically oriented and aimed at the target, the front surface is configured to at least partially face the target plane” (ll. 12-13), “an adjuster configured to be coupled to the riser” (l. 20), “wherein a movement of the adjuster during an adjustment mode causes the body to move relative to the riser” (ll. 20-21), “wherein, when the riser mount couples the body to the riser of the archery bow: the body is pivotal about the first axis during the adjustment mode until a desired position is reached; and the second coupling member is configured to secure the body in the desired position after the adjustment mode” (ll. 22-26). The recited “draw cord”, “shooting plane”, “projectile”, “target plane”, “target”, “archery bow”, “adjuster”, “riser” and “second coupling member” are all distinct from (i.e., are not structural components of) the claimed “archery limb holder”. As a result, it is unclear whether the limitations quoted above should be viewed as merely optional limitations that are not required by the claim (since they do not actually define limitations of the claimed “archery limb holder”), or whether such limitations should be considered to be requirements of the claim. If such limitations are to be considered claim requirements, then the preamble of the claim is indefinite because it fails to accurately characterize the combination of claimed subject matter to which the claim is directed.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the target plane is extendable through a target” (l. 8). This subject matter is indefinite because a “plane” cannot be accurately characterized as being “extendable” since a plane is not capable of being made longer or larger.
Claim 1 recites “a positioning opening configured to receive a second coupling member that extends along a second axis” (ll. 18-19). This limitation only positively recites a positioning opening; it does not positively recite (and, thus, does not limit the claim to) a second coupling member. However, claim 1 goes on to recite “wherein…the second coupling member is configured to secure the body in the desired position after the adjustment mode” (ll. 22-26). This later recitation is indefinite because it sets forth a limitation of the second coupling member, which is not actually positively recited in the claim (and, thus, not a claim requirement).
In claim 2, “concave-shaped” is indefinite because it fails to accurately characterize the shapes of the first and second body portions. The term “concave” is defined as having an outline or surface that curves inward like the interior of a circle or sphere. The first and second body portions do not have an outline or surface with such a concave shape.
Claims 4 and 5 are indefinite because they set forth limitations of the second coupling member, which is (i) not a structural component of the claimed “archery limb holder”, and (ii) not actually positively recited in claim 1 (and, thus, not a claim requirement). See the further explanation above.
Claim 4 recites “causes the second coupling member to rise along one or more of the plurality of guide surfaces” (ll. 2-3). This subject matter is indefinite because it fails to accurately characterize the invention as disclosed in the specification. The invention is not disclosed as having a coupling member that rises along one or more guide surfaces of the positioning opening.
In claim 4, the term “the plurality of guide surfaces” (l. 3) lacks proper antecedent basis. Guide surfaces are introduced in claim 3, but claim 4 depends from claim 1.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it sets forth a limitation of the first and second axes, which are (i) not axes of the claimed “archery limb holder”, and (ii) not actually positively recited in claim 1 (and, thus, not a claim requirement). See the further explanation above.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it sets forth limitations of the riser, which is (i) not a structural component of the claimed “archery limb holder”, and (ii) not actually positively recited in claim 1 (and, thus, not a claim requirement). See the further explanation above.
In claim 7, the term “the riser end” (ll. 4-5 and 7) is indefinite because claim 7 requires more than one riser end. It is unclear which riser end is being referred to.
Claim 8 is directed to an “archery limb holder” (l. 1), but the body of claim 8 recites limitations of additional subject matter that does not constitute part of the claimed “archery limb holder”. Such limitations include “wherein the limb is configured to at least partially support a draw cord that is moveable in a forward direction along a plane to launch a projectile toward a target” (ll. 3-4), and “wherein, when the archery bow is vertically oriented and aimed at the target, the front surface is configured to at least partially face in the forward direction” (ll. 7-8). The recited “draw cord”, “plane”, “projectile”, “target”, “archery bow” and “front surface” are all distinct from (i.e., are not structural components of) the claimed “archery limb holder”. As a result, it is unclear whether the limitations quoted above should be viewed as merely optional limitations that are not required by the claim (since they do not actually define limitations of the claimed “archery limb holder”), or whether such limitations should be considered to be requirements of the claim. If such limitations are to be considered claim requirements, then the preamble of the claim is indefinite because it fails to accurately characterize the combination of claimed subject matter to which the claim is directed.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it sets forth limitations of the coupling member (see l. 3), which is (i) not a structural component of the claimed “archery limb holder”, and (ii) not actually positively recited in claim 8 (and, thus, not a claim requirement). See the further explanation above.
In claim 9, the term “the second opening” (l. 6) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it sets forth limitations of the adjuster, which is not a structural component of the claimed “archery limb holder”. See the further explanation above.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it sets forth limitations of the riser, which is (i) not a structural component of the claimed “archery limb holder”, and (ii) not actually positively recited in claim 8 (and, thus, not a claim requirement). See the further explanation above.
In claim 11, the term “the riser end” (ll. 4-5 and 7) is indefinite because claim 7 requires more than one riser end. It is unclear which riser end is being referred to.
In claims 12 and 13, the recitation “the archery limb holder of claim 11” (l. 2) is indefinite because claim 11 is not limited to merely an “archery limb holder”. Rather, claim 11 requires a combination of a riser and an archery limb holder.
In claim 15, the term “the positioning opening” (l. 1) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 16 is directed to a “method of manufacturing” (l. 1), but no specific and clear steps of manufacturing an article are claimed. The same is true of dependent claims 17-19. Since it is unclear what method is defined by these claims, the claims are indefinite.
Claim 16 is directed to a “method of manufacturing” (l. 1), but the body of claim 16 only recites steps of “structuring”. The same is true of dependent claims 17-19. The recited “structuring” steps are so broad as to encompass any and all possible manners of constructing the claimed article. Since it is impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty what methods are encompassed by the claims and what methods are excluded therefrom, the claims are indefinite.
Claim 16 is directed to a “method of manufacturing an archery limb holder” (l. 1), but the body of claim 16 recites limitations of additional subject matter that does not constitute part of the claimed “method of manufacturing an archery limb holder”. Such limitations include “wherein the structuring of the first body portion comprises structuring the limb to at least partially support a draw cord that is moveable in a forward direction along a plane to launch a projectile toward a target” (ll. 3-5), and “wherein, when the archery bow is vertically oriented and aimed at the target, the front surface is structured to at least partially face in the forward direction” (ll. 9-10). The recited “draw cord”, “plane”, “projectile”, “target”, “archery bow” and “front surface” are all distinct from (i.e., are not structural components of) the “archery limb holder”. As a result, it is unclear whether the limitations quoted above should be viewed as merely optional limitations that are not required by the claim (since they do not actually define limitations of the claimed “method of manufacturing an archery limb holder”), or whether such limitations should be considered to be requirements of the claim. If such limitations are to be considered claim requirements, then the preamble of the claim is indefinite because it fails to accurately characterize the combination of claimed subject matter to which the claim is directed.
Claim 17 is indefinite because it sets forth limitations of the coupling member (see l. 3), which is (i) not a structural component of the claimed “archery limb holder”, and (ii) not actually positively recited in claim 16 (and, thus, not a claim requirement). See the further explanation above.
In claim 17, the term “the second opening” (l. 7) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it sets forth limitations of the adjuster, which is not a structural component of the claimed “archery limb holder”. See the further explanation above.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it sets forth limitations of the riser, which is (i) not a structural component of the claimed “archery limb holder”, and (ii) not actually positively recited in claim 16 (and, thus, not a claim requirement). See the further explanation above.
In claim 19, the term “the riser end” (ll. 4-5 and 7) is indefinite because claim 7 requires more than one riser end. It is unclear which riser end is being referred to.
In claim 20, the recitations “the riser of claim 16” (ll. 3 and 4) and “the archery limb holder of claim 16” (l. 5) are indefinite because claim 16 is not directed to either a “riser” or an “archery limb holder”. Rather, claim 16 is directed to a method of manufacturing.
Dependent claims are is included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Andrews et al.”
US Patent No. 6,543,432 B2
“Campisi”
US Patent No. 5,697,358
“Laborde et al.”
US Patent No. 6,024,076
“Sidebottom et al.”
US Publication No. 2022/0074701 A1
“Sims et al.”
US Publication No. 2009/0145411 A1
“Smith”
US Patent No. 5,280,779
“Walk”
US Patent No. 5,720,267
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
GROUND 3: Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walk.
With respect to claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 14 and 16-18, Walk discloses an archery limb holder 32 comprising:
A body 50 extending from a first body end (see Fig. 1) to a second body end (see Fig. 1), the body comprising:
A first body portion (see annotated Fig. 7 below) comprising a limb mount (defined by walls 52-54, divider 55 and channels 56, 57) configured to at least partially receive end portions 48 of a split limb 34 of an archery bow (see Fig. 1), wherein the split limb 34 is configured to at least partially support a draw cord 37 that is moveable along a shooting plane to launch a projectile toward a target plane, wherein the target plane is extendable through a target. See Figs. 1-7 and 20; col. 4, ll. 6-59.
A second body portion (see annotated Fig. 7 below) structured to be coupled to a riser 30 of the archery bow (see Fig. 1), the second body portion comprising a riser mount (defined by mounting tab 71 and extension 100), wherein the riser mount comprises a mounting surface (see Figs. 1-3 and 5-7) configured to engage a front surface (see Figs. 1-3 and 5-7) of the riser 30, wherein the front surface is configured to at least partially face the target plane when the archery bow (see Fig. 1) is vertically oriented and aimed at the target, wherein the riser mount comprises a riser coupler (defined by mounting tab 71 and extension 100) configured to engage a side surface (see Fig. 1 and 5-6) of the riser 30 (via washers 74, 102), and wherein the riser coupler defines: (a) a pivot opening 72 configured to receive a first coupling member (in the form of pivot pin 75) that extends along a first axis (see Fig. 1); and (b) a positioning opening (slot) 101 configured to receive a second coupling member (in the form of set screw 93 and/or dowel nut 91) that extends along a second axis (see Fig. 1) that is parallel to the first axis (see Fig. 1). See Figs. 1-3 and 5-7; col. 5, ll. 7-62.
An adjuster (in the form of adjustment bolt 84 and/or dowel nut 91) configured to be coupled to the riser 30, wherein a movement of the adjuster 84 and/or 91 during an adjustment mode causes the body 50 to move relative to the riser 30, wherein, when the riser mount (see annotated Fig. 7 below) couples the body 50 to the riser 30, (i) the body 50 is pivotal about the first axis (see Fig. 1) during the adjustment mode until a desired position is reached, and (ii) and the second coupling member 93 and/or 91 is configured to secure the body 50 in the desired position after the adjustment mode, such that the second coupling member 94 and/or 91 cooperates with the adjuster 84 and/or 91 to unlock and lock the adjuster. See Figs. 1-3 and 5-7; col. 5, ll. 21-44.
With respect to claims 3, 4 and 15, Fig. 7 shows that the positioning opening (slot) 101 is bordered by guide surfaces defining an elongated arc shape, and that the second coupling member 94 and/or 91 rises along the guide surfaces.
With respect to claim 20, the archery bow includes the split limb 34 attached to the riser 30 by the limb holder 32, and another split limb 33 attached to the riser 30 by a similar limb holder 31. See Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GROUND 4: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith.
With respect to claims 1, 6, 8-10, 14 and 16-18, Smith discloses an archery limb holder comprising:
A body 20/40/61 extending from a first body end (see Figs. 1-4) to a second body end (see Figs. 1-4), the body comprising:
A first body portion (see Figs. 2-4) comprising a limb mount (defined by recess 33/41 and shoulders 42-44) configured to at least partially receive an end of a limb 12 of an archery bow 10, wherein the limb 12 is configured to at least partially support a draw cord 17 that is moveable along a shooting plane to launch a projectile toward a target plane, wherein the target plane is extendable through a target. See Figs. 1-4; col. 3, ll. 61-62; col. 4, ll. 32-34; col. 4, l. 61 to col. 5, l. 2.
A second body portion (see Figs. 2-4) structured to be coupled to a riser 11 of the archery bow 10, the second body portion comprising a riser mount (defined by spaced walls 34/51-52 and a wall(s) extending between walls 51-52), wherein the riser mount comprises a mounting surface (defined by the wall(s) extending between walls 34/51-52) configured to engage a front surface of the riser 11, wherein the front surface is configured to at least partially face the target plane when the archery bow is vertically oriented and aimed at the target, wherein the riser mount comprises a riser coupler (defined by walls 34/51-52) configured to engage a side surface of the riser 11, wherein the riser coupler defines: (a) pivot openings 54a-54b/69 configured to receive a first coupling member (in the form of pivot pin 21) that extends along a first axis; and (b) positioning openings 55 that extend along a second axis parallel to the first axis. See Figs. 1-4; col. 3, ll. 61-64; col. 4, ll. 35-42; col. 5, ll. 22-39 and 51-55.
An adjuster (in the form of adjustment bolt 22 and/or anchor pin 31/65) configured to be coupled to the riser 11, wherein a movement of the adjuster 22 and/or 31/65 during an adjustment mode causes the body 20/40/61 to move relative to the riser 11, wherein, when the riser mount couples the body 20/40/61 to the riser 11, the body 20/40/61 is pivotal about the first axis during the adjustment mode until a desired position is reached. See Figs. 1-4; col. 3, l. 61 to col. 4, l. 1; col. 4, ll. 32-60; col. 5, ll. 51-62.
With respect to claim 1, the positioning openings 55 are sized and positioned such that they are capable of receiving a second coupling member that extends along the second axis. Thus, the openings 55 are “configured to receive a second coupling member that extends along a second axis”, as broadly claimed. Since the second coupling member is not positively recited in claim 1, the limitation “the second coupling member is configured to secure the body in the desired position after the adjustment mode” is not given patentable weight.
With respect to claim 2, Figs. 2-4 show that the two portions of the body 20/40/61 comprise “concave-shaped” (or recessed) structures that face in opposite directions.
With respect to claim 20, the archery bow includes the limb 12 attached to the riser 11 by the limb holder (explained above), and another limb 13 attached to the riser 11 by a similar limb holder. See Fig. 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Campisi, Laborde et al., Sidebottom et al. and Sims et al. teach adjustable limb holders for archery bows.
Andrews et al. teaches a limb holder with a recessed limb mount.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11-13 would be allowable if claims 7 and 11 are rewritten in independent form and claims 7 and 11-13 are amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 608.01(o). Specifically, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the subject matter of claims 3 and 4.
The specification is objected to because:
In ¶ 0029, “Figs. 2 and 7-9” (1st line) should read “Figs. 2 and 9-11”.
In ¶ 0029, “surfaces 124, 126, 128” (10th line) should read “surfaces 124, 126a, 126b, 128”. See Fig. 11.
In ¶ 0030, “surfaces 153, 154, 156, 158” (8th line) should read “surfaces 153, 154a, 154b, 156, 158”. See Fig. 12.
In ¶ 0030, “surfaces 124, 126, 128” (9th line) should read “surfaces 124, 126a, 126b, 128”. See Fig. 11.
The last sentence of ¶ 0033 is inaccurate. As shown in Figs. 5-6, the bore or opening 213b does not align with the fastener 215 and, thus, does not receive the fastener 215.
In ¶ 0035, “concave-shaped” (5th line) is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In ¶ 0035, “The second body portion 220 comprises a riser mount 221 that is located opposite of the second body portion 220” (6th to 7th lines) is inaccurate. The riser mount 221 is not located opposite of the second body portion 220 because the riser mount 221 is part of (defined by) the second body portion 220.
In ¶ 0035, “The riser mount 221 comprises a riser coupler 222 and a mounting surface 223” (7th to 8th lines) is inaccurate/incomplete because Fig. 8 includes two occurrences of reference number 222 (i.e., two riser couplers) and two occurrences of reference number 223 (i.e., two mounting surfaces).
In ¶ 0035, “right 107” (12th line) should read “left 107” in order to be consistent with ¶ 0027.
The second sentence of ¶ 0041 is inaccurate. Only limb holder 200b mounts to mounting region 116 whereas limb holder 200a mounts to mounting region 110.
In ¶ 0042, “as shown in Fig. 2” (2nd line) is inaccurate because Fig. 2 does not show limb holders 200a, 200b installed at the mounting regions 110, 116. Rather, Fig. 2 shows limb holders 200a, 200b installed at the mounting regions 112, 118.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Reference number 112b is mentioned in ¶ 0028 of the specification, but this reference number does not appear in the drawings.
Reference character SA is mentioned in ¶ 0030 of the specification, but this reference character does not appear in the drawings.
Reference characters DL1, DL2, DW1 and DW2 are mentioned in ¶ 0042 of the specification, but these reference characters do not appear in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 4, reference number 215 should be changed to 215b. See ¶ 0034.
In Fig. 5, reference number 213a and its lead line should be omitted since the corresponding bore or opening is not visible in Fig. 5. See ¶ 0033 and Fig. 8.
In Fig. 5, the left occurrence of reference number 215 should be changed to 215b. See ¶ 0034.
In Fig. 5, the current occurrence of reference number 215b and its lead line should be omitted since it does not properly label the second portion of the fastener 215. See ¶ 0034.
In Fig. 6, reference number 213a and its lead line should be omitted since the corresponding bore or opening is not visible in Fig. 5. See ¶ 0033 and Fig. 8.
In Fig. 6, the lead line for reference number 116b is not properly directed to the corresponding opening. See ¶ 0028 and Fig. 4.
In Fig. 11, reference number 154 should be changed to 154a. See ¶ 0030 and Fig. 12.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Prosecution Insights